Open Carry

[pgg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The exact details are beyond this level of discussion.

Its like talking about speed limits. When gun nuts want no limits at all.... discussing whether the limit should be 65 or 75 is getting ahead of ourselves

You've spent pages and pages writing volumes and volumes of text getting off into the weeds. I mean, we've talked about drugs and alcohol as tangentially related subjects of societal harm.

But you can't be bothered to answer the most basic questions about what you actually want to be done about guns. Just another reflexive insult about "gun nuts" and what you assert they (we?) want.

You're not arguing in good faith.

 

[pgg]

No one has yet explained why guns/2a arent the reason the US has by far the highest gun murder/suicide rate in the developed world. Its probably the booze. And suicides dont matter apparently. But at the tyrants are at bay.

Man those tyrants

If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that it was UscGhost who argued that self-inflicted deaths don't matter with regard to regulating or banning the instrument involved.

But you're not paying attention.

Or arguing in good faith either.

 

[UscGhost]

You've spent pages and pages writing volumes and volumes of text getting off into the weeds. I mean, we've talked about drugs and alcohol as tangentially related subjects of societal harm.

But you can't be bothered to answer the most basic questions about what you actually want to be done about guns. Just another reflexive insult about "gun nuts" and what you assert they (we?) want.

You're not arguing in good faith.

I already said it in the post you quoted.

Asking me if i think we should limit the number of AR15s to 4,8,12, or 16 isnt impactful.

Especially when the 2A folks oppose any gun control ideas entirely, then its pointless to argue the exact specifics of the idea.

The GOP controls all 3 branches..yet no changes to gun control regulations. So clearly, they dont want any. Any stronger controls would get Dem support pretty easily

 

[UscGhost]

If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that it was UscGhost who argued that self-inflicted deaths don't matter with regard to regulating or banning the instrument involved.

But you're not paying attention.

Or arguing in good faith either.

Oh they do.

But someone drinking every day for 20+ years is vastly different than someone having a bad day at work and shooting themselves when they get home. And you know that

 

[Hoya11]

The stats are the stats man. Make your selective outrage make sense?




We have the most guns and the most diverse population. Nobody is denying that. Nobody here is saying we can’t do anything about it. We differ SIGNIFICANTLY in what and how it should be done.

We also have the highest rate of drug overdose deaths of developed countries.

One of the highest rates of incarcerated citizens.

Highest obesity rate of high income countries.

One of the highest suicide rates of high income countries.

Heart disease is our leading cause of death.

Highest healthcare costs.

Highest consumer debt.

Prescription drug use.

Energy waste.

All these things matter, in many ways much more than the guns. Why do guns get all of your attention?

Despite all of this we are still largely the envy of the world. (Largest total immigrant population in the world).

Those are all results of the same bigger problem. Food companies , gun companies , pharmaceutical companies are allowed to behave very badly in this country and it hurts the American people. They all need regulation as they are in other countries. Seen a big pharmaceutical ad on tv in another country? How about obesity?

I’m not sure your examples other harmful things that are unregulated does anything to counter the main argument that guns need to be more regulated. I think your points above strengthen that argument. It’s not just the gun industry that’s been allowed to victimize the American people your right. Other lobbies also control politicians such as pharma and food. America needs to regulate all of those out of control industries. Hard to understand someone in healthcare that can’t see that..

 

[UscGhost]

Again, it’s not hard. 3rd world countries are building them to fight tyrannical regimes (because the regimes took their guns away).

Yes a fully functional (and highly reliable) ar 15 can be built with a parts kit and a lower receiver (the actual firearm). Let’s say I agree and say the practice should be banned. How are you going to regulate springs, steel and plastic? Functionally what does that look like?

You realize there are hundreds of 3D printing gun files that require no or very few readily available metal parts? You going to ban the internet too? You going to squash the 1st amendment in your crusade against the 2nd, chasing those deaths that pale in comparison to other preventable causes?

I know. Every time i turn on the news, i see soldiers and terrorists in Africa running around shooting each other with plastic guns lol

 

[pgg]

when the 2A folks oppose any gun control ideas entirely, then its pointless to argue the exact specifics of the idea

You're talking with at least two "2A folks" in this thread who keep asking you about your specific gun control ideas, and your response is that it pointless to talk about specifics because the "2A folks" don't agree with you.

This is what I mean when I say you aren't arguing in good faith.

 

[UscGhost]

You're talking with at least two "2A folks" in this thread who keep asking you about your specific gun control ideas, and your response is that it pointless to talk about specifics because the "2A folks" don't agree with you.

This is what I mean when I say you aren't arguing in good faith.

Here you go

Universal Background Checks: Requiring background checks for all firearm sales and transfers, including those at gun shows and online, to close existing loopholes. Polls consistently show overwhelming public support for this measure, often above 80%.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs): Known as "Red Flag" laws, these allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who show warning signs that they pose a danger to themselves or others.

Bans on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines: Prohibiting the sale, transfer, or manufacture of military-style semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This measure tends to have majority, though less universal, public support compared to background checks.

Secure Firearm Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely (e.g., in a locked safe or with a trigger lock) to prevent access by children and prohibited individuals, a measure that is often supported by gun owners.

Closing the "Charleston Loophole": Extending the time the FBI has to complete a background check beyond the current default of three business days, preventing a sale from automatically proceeding if the check is not finished.

Disarming Domestic Abusers: Expanding existing prohibitions to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or who are under a permanent or temporary restraining order cannot purchase or possess firearms.

 

[DocMcCoy]

I know. Every time i turn on the news, i see soldiers and terrorists in Africa running around shooting each other with plastic guns lol

I’m not surprised given the media I’m sure you consume.

“While 3D-printed firearms are generally only reported on in the media when either fascists or gang members use them, the vast majority of examples of real-use case of 3D-printed guns—specifically the FGC-9—is rebels under totalitarian regimes printing them to resist being crushed,” said Jake Hanrahan, a journalist and documentary filmmaker specialising in war and conflict. Hanrahan previously worked at VICE News between 2014 and 2017.

What Unites Organised Crime in Europe With Rebels in Myanmar? 3D-Printed Guns.

A landmark UK conviction involving a university lecturer selling 3D-printed sub-machine guns to gangsters highlights the alarming spread of downloadable DIY firearms, experts tell VICE News.

www.vice.com

 

[DocMcCoy]

Those are all results of the same bigger problem. Food companies , gun companies , pharmaceutical companies are allowed to behave very badly in this country and it hurts the American people. They all need regulation as they are in other countries. Seen a big pharmaceutical ad on tv in another country? How about obesity?

I’m not sure your examples other harmful things that are unregulated does anything to counter the main argument that guns need to be more regulated. I think your points above strengthen that argument. It’s not just the gun industry that’s been allowed to victimize the American people your right. Other lobbies also control politicians such as pharma and food. America needs to regulate all of those out of control industries. Hard to understand someone in healthcare that can’t see that..

You are misinterpreting my argument. But I’m glad we agree there are other problems. The question is why is the emphasis on guns? They make up a small fraction of the deaths. Proposed solutions from the left don’t seem to address deaths directly.

All these things are regulated to some degree. Why is the answer from the left always more rules, regulations, and government control? Is there no other way to address preventable deaths?

 

[UscGhost]

I’m not surprised given the media I’m sure you consume.

“While 3D-printed firearms are generally only reported on in the media when either fascists or gang members use them, the vast majority of examples of real-use case of 3D-printed guns—specifically the FGC-9—is rebels under totalitarian regimes printing them to resist being crushed,” said Jake Hanrahan, a journalist and documentary filmmaker specialising in war and conflict. Hanrahan previously worked at VICE News between 2014 and 2017.

What Unites Organised Crime in Europe With Rebels in Myanmar? 3D-Printed Guns.

A landmark UK conviction involving a university lecturer selling 3D-printed sub-machine guns to gangsters highlights the alarming spread of downloadable DIY firearms, experts tell VICE News.

www.vice.com

I am more concerned with the guns that US citizens currently have and are currently using to kill people. And no, i dont keep up with daily events in Myanmar.

But sounds like the authorities are able to track down and arrest folks making illegal guns. So, I'll pay attention when it matters

 

[UscGhost]

You are misinterpreting my argument. But I’m glad we agree there are other problems. The question is why is the emphasis on guns? They make up a small fraction of the deaths. Proposed solutions from the left don’t seem to address deaths directly.

All these things are regulated to some degree. Why is the answer from the left always more rules, regulations, and government control? Is there no other way to address preventable deaths?

Leading cause of death in kids is guns

 

[DocMcCoy]

Leading cause of death in kids is guns

*age 1-19.

And that’s horrible, but how do those <3000 deaths trump the multitude of other deaths? By what metrics and standards? Your entire argument is largely an appeal to emotion. It’s in the same vein as evangelists claiming abortion is the leading cause is death. Is the goal emotional resonance, or evidence based policy?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

I’m not surprised given the media I’m sure you consume.

“While 3D-printed firearms are generally only reported on in the media when either fascists or gang members use them, the vast majority of examples of real-use case of 3D-printed guns—specifically the FGC-9—is rebels under totalitarian regimes printing them to resist being crushed,” said Jake Hanrahan, a journalist and documentary filmmaker specialising in war and conflict. Hanrahan previously worked at VICE News between 2014 and 2017.

What Unites Organised Crime in Europe With Rebels in Myanmar? 3D-Printed Guns.

A landmark UK conviction involving a university lecturer selling 3D-printed sub-machine guns to gangsters highlights the alarming spread of downloadable DIY firearms, experts tell VICE News.

www.vice.com

This is up there with the silliest post of this thread yet.
Pls do some reading before you post.

Read about the reliability and durability of 3d guns. Read about the price of 3d printers required to print this in comparison to mass produced guns. Read about the laws regarding them. Reading about the manufacturing skills required to make a fully functional one in comparison to a regular gun.


You need to educate yourself if you really believe 3d guns are any way comparable to regular guns

You're pretending like theyre no different to a printing a regular old sheet of paper here.

 

[UscGhost]

*age 1-19.

And that’s horrible, but how do those <3000 deaths trump the multitude of other deaths? By what metrics and standards? Your entire argument is largely an appeal to emotion. It’s in the same vein as evangelists claiming abortion is the leading cause is death. Is the goal emotional resonance, or evidence based policy?

Feel free to suggest ways to reduce deaths for cigs and alcohol and obesity

Not sure why you think we shouldn't address the leading cause of deaths in kids..when every other 1st world country has

 

[UscGhost]

This is up there with the silliest post of this thread yet.
Pls do some reading before you post.

Read about the reliability and durability of 3d guns. Read about the price of 3d printers required to print this in comparison to mass produced guns. Read about the laws regarding them. Reading about the manufacturing skills required to make a fully functional one in comparison to a regular gun.


You need to educate yourself if you really believe 3d guns are any way comparable to regular guns

You're pretending like theyre no different to a printing a regular old sheet of paper here.

Well just look at Ukraine, Africa, South America.

War zones just absolutely flooded with plastic guns lol

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Well just look at Ukraine, Africa, South America.

War zones just absolutely flooded with plastic guns lol

Yeah putins go to is the good old reliable **** gun 22. It will end the war

 

[pgg]

Here you go

Thank you. 🙂

Universal Background Checks: Requiring background checks for all firearm sales and transfers, including those at gun shows and online, to close existing loopholes. Polls consistently show overwhelming public support for this measure, often above 80%.

Sounds good.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs): Known as "Red Flag" laws, these allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who show warning signs that they pose a danger to themselves or others.

I could support this, with a couple conditions:

1) That there is a prompt, no cost process for the person whose firearms have been taken to recover them. The burden of proof must be on the state to show the taking is warranted; not OK to put the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not a danger. Evidence of a danger or threat must be compelling.

2) Penalties (with teeth) for people who make frivolous or bad faith reports.

ERPOs are ripe for government abuse.

Bans on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines: Prohibiting the sale, transfer, or manufacture of military-style semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This measure tends to have majority, though less universal, public support compared to background checks.

Can't agree with that.

First, the definition of "military-style" is unworkably broad. There's not really any functional difference between an AR15 and a Ruger Mini-14, except one looks the part of a "military" rifle and one doesn't. Prior and current assault weapon bans based on features like flash hiders, pistol grips, and shoulder thingies that go up, are arbitrary and essentially unrelated to function. What's a military caliber? If 5.56 is out, how about .223 Remington? Is a .308 Winchester hunting rifle banned because a 7.62x51 NATO round will work in it? Are 300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifles banned because the Marine Corps builds sniper rifles off the same platform?

Second, banning all semi-automatic rifles is never going to pass court review. The primary litmus test, repeatedly upheld by SCOTUS, concerns common lawful use. It's undeniable that millions of semi-automatic rifles are privately owned and lawfully used for hunting, sporting purposes, and self-defense. And that's before we even touch on the 2A arguments related to a well-regulated (i.e. competent, effective) militia. Semi-automatic rifles been available for more than a century in many forms. The Garand was (I believe) the first semi-automatic rifle issued by the US military, and that was in the 1930s. Those are actually classified as curios and relics now.

Third, an arbitrary 10-round magazine limit is unreasonable. Ask any police officer or police organization if they'd be willing to limit their officers to 10-round magazines. They'll tell you that doing so would put those officers at unnecessary and unreasonable risk. (And they're right.) Same goes for biometric safeties, or other modifications that make firearms less reliable.

Secure Firearm Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely (e.g., in a locked safe or with a trigger lock) to prevent access by children and prohibited individuals, a measure that is often supported by gun owners.

Reasonable.

Closing the "Charleston Loophole": Extending the time the FBI has to complete a background check beyond the current default of three business days, preventing a sale from automatically proceeding if the check is not finished.

Reasonable.

Disarming Domestic Abusers: Expanding existing prohibitions to ensure that individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or who are under a permanent or temporary restraining order cannot purchase or possess firearms.

Reasonable.


I would concede 4 of the things you've outlined above, maybe a 5th with some caveats. The 6th (semi-auto rifle bans and magazine bans) is an unworkable unconstitutional hard no.

That's great, we have some common ground! So, in the spirit of compromise, what existing gun control would you be willing to repeal to get those 4-5 things? How about, for starters, off the top of my head,
- remove suppressors from the NFA?
- nationwide reciprocity for carry permits?
- repeal the Hughes Amendment and reopen the registry?
- remove purchase waiting periods for people who already own at least one gun?
- destroy all government records of individual firearm ownership, and prohibit future registration?

 

[UscGhost]

Why rep a

Thank you. 🙂


Sounds good.


I could support this, with a couple conditions:

1) That there is a prompt, no cost process for the person whose firearms have been taken to recover them. The burden of proof must be on the state to show the taking is warranted; not OK to put the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not a danger. Evidence of a danger or threat must be compelling.

2) Penalties (with teeth) for people who make frivolous or bad faith reports.

ERPOs are ripe for government abuse.


Can't agree with that.

First, the definition of "military-style" is unworkably broad. There's not really any functional difference between an AR15 and a Ruger Mini-14, except one looks the part of a "military" rifle and one doesn't. Prior and current assault weapon bans based on features like flash hiders, pistol grips, and shoulder thingies that go up, are arbitrary and essentially unrelated to function. What's a military caliber? If 5.56 is out, how about .223 Remington? Is a .308 Winchester hunting rifle banned because a 7.62x51 NATO round will work in it? Are 300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifles banned because the Marine Corps builds sniper rifles off the same platform?

Second, banning all semi-automatic rifles is never going to pass court review. The primary litmus test, repeatedly upheld by SCOTUS, concerns common lawful use. It's undeniable that millions of semi-automatic rifles are privately owned and lawfully used for hunting, sporting purposes, and self-defense. And that's before we even touch on the 2A arguments related to a well-regulated (i.e. competent, effective) militia. Semi-automatic rifles been available for more than a century in many forms. The Garand was (I believe) the first semi-automatic rifle issued by the US military, and that was in the 1930s. Those are actually classified as curios and relics now.

Third, an arbitrary 10-round magazine limit is unreasonable. Ask any police officer or police organization if they'd be willing to limit their officers to 10-round magazines. They'll tell you that doing so would put those officers at unnecessary and unreasonable risk. (And they're right.) Same goes for biometric safeties, or other modifications that make firearms less reliable.


Reasonable.


Reasonable.


Reasonable.


I would concede 4 of the things you've outlined above, maybe a 5th with some caveats. The 6th (semi-auto rifle bans and magazine bans) is an unworkable unconstitutional hard no.

That's great, we have some common ground! So, in the spirit of compromise, what existing gun control would you be willing to repeal to get those 4-5 things? How about, for starters, off the top of my head,
- remove suppressors from the NFA?
- nationwide reciprocity for carry permits?
- repeal the Hughes Amendment and reopen the registry?
- remove purchase waiting periods for people who already own at least one gun?
- destroy all government records of individual firearm ownership, and prohibit future registration?

Why repeal the hughes act? Does that make things safer? Do people need machine guns?

If we remove waiting period and registration..how do we know if they already have a gun..or how do we know if a current owner has been convicted of violent/domestic abuse and should have their guns removed?

Suppressors? Probably not a huge prevalence of their use in crimes..not sure on the data

Is that like a national permit? Would depend on what standardized criteria are used.

 

[DocMcCoy]

This is up there with the silliest post of this thread yet.
Pls do some reading before you post.

Read about the reliability and durability of 3d guns. Read about the price of 3d printers required to print this in comparison to mass produced guns. Read about the laws regarding them. Reading about the manufacturing skills required to make a fully functional one in comparison to a regular gun.


You need to educate yourself if you really believe 3d guns are any way comparable to regular guns

You're pretending like theyre no different to a printing a regular old sheet of paper here.

Im well versed on the topic, thanks!

For a multitude of reasons this is ignorant. But, if you understood how a firearm is defined legally, what part need a serial number, you might understand in part how ignorant your post is.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Not sure why you think we shouldn't address the leading cause of deaths in kids..when every other 1st world country has

No, we should. There is common ground to get there too. The left goes all in because it’s a politically expedient topic that appeals to emotion, emphasizes the government in solving collective problems, and frames everything 2A as symbolic of conservative rhetoric which they disingenuously conflate with right wing extremism to appeal to the ever drifting further left, democratic socialist base. Truth be damned.

Suppressors? Probably not a huge prevalence of their use in crimes..not sure on the data

Surprise. There isn’t. Just another scary thing that had to be banned for “reasons”.

<0.1 precent of firearms types recovered from crime scenes, per ATF 2023 data. Which is broader than the number actually used in crime. 0.01 percent of suppressors in circulation per year

Silencers

By making gunshots harder to hear or see, silencers diminish the effectiveness of law enforcement and gunshot detection systems.

giffords.org

They go from how inherently dangerous they are in masking crime as “silencers” to the next paragraph saying it doesn’t make sense for gun owners to want to own them because they are so loud that they don’t protect against hearing damage. Lol.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Im well versed on the topic, thanks!

For a multitude of reasons this is ignorant. But, if you understood how a firearm is defined legally, what part need a serial number, you might understand in part how ignorant your post is.

You're feigning indignation trying to steer this back to an angle you can converse on. I didnt mention any of those topics you claim.

You obviously know close to nothing about printed guns. The earlier link you posted you obviously found on a quick Google search and likely didnt even read it

 

[UscGhost]

No, we should. There is common ground to get there too. The left goes all in because it’s a politically expedient topic that appeals to emotion, emphasizes the government in solving collective problems, and frames everything 2A as symbolic of conservative rhetoric which they disingenuously conflate with right wing extremism to appeal to the ever drifting further left, democratic socialist base. Truth be damned.



Surprise. There isn’t. Just another scary thing that had to be banned for “reasons”.

<0.1 precent of firearms types recovered from crime scenes, per ATF 2023 data. Which is broader than the number actually used in crime. 0.01 percent of suppressors in circulation per year

Silencers

By making gunshots harder to hear or see, silencers diminish the effectiveness of law enforcement and gunshot detection systems.

giffords.org

They go from how inherently dangerous they are in masking crime as “silencers” to the next paragraph saying it doesn’t make sense for gun owners to want to own them because they are so loud that they don’t protect against hearing damage. Lol.

Nobody cared about silencers in this thread about gun safety

 

[DocMcCoy]

You're feigning indignation trying to steer this back to an angle you can converse on. I didnt mention any of those topics you claim.

You obviously know close to nothing about printed guns. The earlier link you posted you obviously found on a quick Google search and likely didnt even read it

Ok. Sure I guess? I’m sure you know better.

Anything you want to discuss or just troll?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Nobody cared about silencers in this thread about gun safety

It was brought up as a room for negotiation in common sense gun reform. There are also several lawsuits pending in the wake of removing the language of the 200 dollar tax stamp which will likely result in The Supreme Court weighing in on the ATFs justification for regulating suppressors. I think it’s fair to ask where you stand and why? Given the conversation we’ve had, are they a safety issue?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Ok. Sure I guess? I’m sure you know better.

Anything you want to discuss or just troll?

You seem to have settled on this troll defense. Its a peculiar one and particularly weak or pathetic. Weirdly enough its what liberals often used against guys like kirk. Maybe youre a closet Democrat?

I tried to educate you on the weakness of the printed guns argument and for that i guess I must be a troll... and the problems with quoting an article that has 10+ references to organized crime/terrorists... and you berated someone for the quality of media they consume then quote vice.com

Debate better

 

[DocMcCoy]

You seem to have settled on this troll defense. Its a peculiar one and particularly weak or pathetic. Weirdly enough its what liberals often used against guys like kirk. Maybe youre a closet Democrat?

I tried to educate you on the weakness of the printed guns argument and for that i guess I must be a troll... and the problems with quoting an article that has 10+ references to organized crime/terrorists... and you berated someone for the quality of media they consume then quote vice.com

Debate better

lol. Please educate me further.

You don’t know what you don’t know man. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that “ghost guns” are largely ineffective, cost prohibitive, unreliable, etc. none. I mean why the push to regulate them if that’s the case, right? Every major law enforcement agency considers them a threat, but you know more than me so I’m sure you know more than them too.

We’ve come along way since the liberator and 8k 3d printers in 2013. Do you understand the difference between jigs and routers, 3d printers, cnc machines, and how they can create firearms from almost nothing? Do you know every generation becomes cheaper, more reliable, and less dependent on “firearm parts? Do you know why the people that advocate for and create these things pursue this as a goal? Do you know how to define a firearm in the context of this argument? Have you ever compared the reliability of a completed 80% lower to conventional lower receiver? Ever 3d printed a Glock frame? What’s your experience here other than “nuh uh”, and ad hominems?

Of course that was your take away from my post. You deny the fgc 9 is being used by Myanmar rebels against tyranny, largely because those regimes limited their availability to conventional weapons?

You haven’t debated at all. Just interjected with nonsense and inflammatory posts.

Read up. Then come back and join us.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

lol. Please educate me further.

You don’t know what you don’t know man. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that “ghost guns” are largely ineffective, cost prohibitive, unreliable, etc. none. I mean why the push to regulate them if that’s the case, right? Every major law enforcement agency considers them a threat, but you know more than me so I’m sure you know more than them too.

We’ve come along way since the liberator and 8k 3d printers in 2013. Do you understand the difference between jigs and routers, 3d printers, cnc machines, and how they can create firearms from almost nothing? Do you know every generation becomes cheaper, more reliable, and less dependent on “firearm parts? Do you know why the people that advocate for and create these things pursue this as a goal? Do you know how to define a firearm in the context of this argument? Have you ever compared the reliability of a completed 80% lower to conventional lower receiver? Ever 3d printed a Glock frame? What’s your experience here other than “nuh uh”, and ad hominems?

Of course that was your take away from my post. You deny the fgc 9 is being used by Myanmar rebels against tyranny, largely because those regimes limited their availability to conventional weapons?

You haven’t debated at all. Just interjected with nonsense and inflammatory posts.

Read up. Then come back and join us.

Ha ha ha this is hilarious. Im off to run an RCT on ghost guns in Myanmar (a topic you introduced. ) absolutely the burden of proof is on me
🙄

Didn't you say a printed gun was easy to make? Now you need jigs router and cnc machines? Wow, we climbing on down now?
Debate better man

Im done with you now

 

[DocMcCoy]

Ha ha ha this is hilarious. Im off to run an RCT on ghost guns in Myanmar (a topic you introduced. ) absolutely the burden of proof is on me
🙄

Didn't you say a printed gun was easy to make? Now you need jigs router and cnc machines? Wow, we climbing on down now?
Debate better man

Im done with you now

You are right. I’m probably talking to a guy that keeps his tools in a pillow case.

Good talk.

 

[UscGhost]

It was brought up as a room for negotiation in common sense gun reform. There are also several lawsuits pending in the wake of removing the language of the 200 dollar tax stamp which will likely result in The Supreme Court weighing in on the ATFs justification for regulating suppressors. I think it’s fair to ask where you stand and why? Given the conversation we’ve had, are they a safety issue?

Not a big safety issue.

Then again, its not really the Right to Bear silencers is it?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Not a big safety issue.

Then again, its not really the Right to Bear silencers is it?

Well technically it might be. According to US Code and NFA law, they are one and the same, and it is fixing to be tested again, post Bruen.

 

[pgg]

Why repeal the hughes act? Does that make things safer? Do people need machine guns?

It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

And no, I don't think the Hughes Amendment is ever going to be repealed.

But you could count on the fingers of ONE HAND the number of NFA-registered legally transferrable machine guns that have been used in a crime since 1934. So closing that avenue for legal ownership obviously wasn't done for reasons of safety.

And if safety isn't the state's compelling and least restrictive justification for banning new ones, what is?

If we remove waiting period and registration..how do we know if they already have a gun..or how do we know if a current owner has been convicted of violent/domestic abuse and should have their guns removed?

I don't object to a short waiting period to buy a first gun. It just makes no sense to make them wait to buy another.

Red flag laws don't depend upon a state registry.

Presumably a person who's been convicted of a violent crime could be asked, and/or searched. Beyond that, there are rapidly escalating penalties for such felons who do possess, acquire, or use guns.

I don't think this is an issue at all.

Suppressors? Probably not a huge prevalence of their use in crimes..not sure on the data

Many nations with very strict gun control don't regulate them at all. They're just considered polite (guns are loud) and a good way to reduce hearing injury.

Is that like a national permit? Would depend on what standardized criteria are used.

All states honor my drivers license. There's no reason all states shouldn't honor my carry permit. Some floor standard for national reciprocity reasonable.

Glad to see we agree on some things.

Then again, its not really the Right to Bear silencers is it?

It is. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that non-firearm objects (ammunition, magazines, and other parts) are protected.

Besides, suppressors are explicitly defined as firearms by the law, and regulated as such by the NFA. We can add this oddity to the list of gun control laws that don't make sense.

 

[UscGhost]

It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

And no, I don't think the Hughes Amendment is ever going to be repealed.

But you could count on the fingers of ONE HAND the number of NFA-registered legally transferrable machine guns that have been used in a crime since 1934. So closing that avenue for legal ownership obviously wasn't done for reasons of safety.

And if safety isn't the state's compelling and least restrictive justification for banning new ones, what is?



I don't object to a short waiting period to buy a first gun. It just makes no sense to make them wait to buy another.

Red flag laws don't depend upon a state registry.

Presumably a person who's been convicted of a violent crime could be asked, and/or searched. Beyond that, there are rapidly escalating penalties for such felons who do possess, acquire, or use guns.

I don't think this is an issue at all.



Many nations with very strict gun control don't regulate them at all. They're just considered polite (guns are loud) and a good way to reduce hearing injury.



All states honor my drivers license. There's no reason all states shouldn't honor my carry permit. Some floor standard for national reciprocity reasonable.

Glad to see we agree on some things.




It is. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that non-firearm objects (ammunition, magazines, and other parts) are protected.

Besides, suppressors are explicitly defined as firearms by the law, and regulated as such by the NFA. We can add this oddity to the list of gun control laws that don't make sense.

So far, silencers have not been ruled as protected by 2A, as they are non essential for the operation of the gun. That may change but hasnt so far

A lack of a machine gun doesn't impede your ability to bear arms. Lots of other arms available to you

The reason you need a waiting period for a second gun is the same reason you need a waiting period for the first one. Person could have committed a violent crime in the interim period of time

I could also count on one hand the number of crimes committed with civilian owned missle launchers and grenades. Doesnt mean civilians have any reason to own them

Many blue states dont want to import the gun violence from red states, so i imagine the criteria blue states want for a gun permit would be prohibitive to the reds

 

[pgg]

So far, silencers have not been ruled as protected by 2A, as they are non essential for the operation of the gun. That may change but hasnt so far

The argument isn't quite so straightforward, but yes, we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS has to say about it. Eventually they'll get around to it, probably.

A lack of a machine gun doesn't impede your ability to bear arms. Lots of other arms available to you

Availability of a (perhaps) suitable substitute is not, in isolation, a sufficient reason to ban anything at all.

When it comes to constitutionally enumerated rights, that rationale obviously fails strict scrutiny ... and in the case of the 2A it fails the Bruen standard even harder.

A good 1st Amendment analogy would be attempting to ban printing presses because pens and pencils are still legal. The line of argument is a red herring, a total non sequitur.

The reason you need a waiting period for a second gun is the same reason you need a waiting period for the first one. Person could have committed a violent crime in the interim period of time

You're confusing a "waiting period" with the time required for a background check. These are separate issues.

Some states impose a "cooling off" waiting period in the hopes of stopping sales of guns to people who are impulsively angry RIGHT NOW and want to go shoot someone RIGHT NOW after they go buy a gun RIGHT NOW. Last I looked California was 10 days. These are silly laws in the first place; doubly silly laws in the context of imposing a "cooling off" waiting period on a would-be buyer who already owns a gun that he could use to go shoot someone RIGHT NOW.

Improving the background check system in a way that required more time might be reasonable (I'd need to hear the details and the arguments in favor), though in practice such a thing would probably be abused.

I could also count on one hand the number of crimes committed with civilian owned missle launchers and grenades. Doesnt mean civilians have any reason to own them

Your sarcastic joke here is funny, but not because it's intrinsically so, but because you're accidentally getting the point. 🙂

Such things are currently regulated exactly like machine guns! Civilians CAN and actually DO own such things. To buy a grenade you need to go through exactly the same process and get exactly the same $200 ATF tax stamp as machine guns ... except there's no equivalent to the Hughes Amendment, so the registry for destructive devices is still open for newly-manufactured items.

They're uncommon because the DD tax stamp is needed for each individual munition, and there are strict rules for storage that go well beyond a $500 gun safe from Costco, and because there aren't (to my knowledge) any manufacturers who'll actually sell a new one to you, and because very very few people actually want them. The "finding one for sale" difficulty leaves Form 1 manufacturing (and there are laws making that a tough route too), or Form 4 transfer of increasingly rare older stock that's already out there.

I'm glad you agree with me that legal ownership of such things is a non-issue. I knew we had common ground.

Many blue states dont want to import the gun violence from red states, so i imagine the criteria blue states want for a gun permit would be prohibitive to the reds

That is exactly the case. Most states have reciprocity agreements with most other states.

With my Virginia permit, it's easier to list the states where it is NOT honored than states where it is: California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, most of the New England states.

The argument that states like California make is exactly what you imagine: they think other states' requirements are too loose.

The funny thing is, when I lived in California, I actually had a carry permit. And once I'd navigated through the absurd process (much of which has since been struck down by the courts), the actual "training" bit wasn't really any different or more difficult than the non-California requirements I've fulfilled elsewhere.

For the record, I personally think the training and education requirements for a carry permit are too low EVERYWHERE, California included. As they exist today, they are too short and essentially impossible to fail, no matter how dumb or incompetent a person is. I would favor more comprehensive training, and proficiency tests that are actually possible for a person to fail.

 

[UscGhost]

The argument isn't quite so straightforward, but yes, we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS has to say about it. Eventually they'll get around to it, probably.


Availability of a (perhaps) suitable substitute is not, in isolation, a sufficient reason to ban anything at all.

When it comes to constitutionally enumerated rights, that rationale obviously fails strict scrutiny ... and in the case of the 2A it fails the Bruen standard even harder.

A good 1st Amendment analogy would be attempting to ban printing presses because pens and pencils are still legal. The line of argument is a red herring, a total non sequitur.


You're confusing a "waiting period" with the time required for a background check. These are separate issues.

Some states impose a "cooling off" waiting period in the hopes of stopping sales of guns to people who are impulsively angry RIGHT NOW and want to go shoot someone RIGHT NOW after they go buy a gun RIGHT NOW. Last I looked California was 10 days. These are silly laws in the first place; doubly silly laws in the context of imposing a "cooling off" waiting period on a would-be buyer who already owns a gun that he could use to go shoot someone RIGHT NOW.

Improving the background check system in a way that required more time might be reasonable (I'd need to hear the details and the arguments in favor), though in practice such a thing would probably be abused.


Your sarcastic joke here is funny, but not because it's intrinsically so, but because you're accidentally getting the point. 🙂

Such things are currently regulated exactly like machine guns! Civilians CAN and actually DO own such things. To buy a grenade you need to go through exactly the same process and get exactly the same $200 ATF tax stamp as machine guns ... except there's no equivalent to the Hughes Amendment, so the registry for destructive devices is still open for newly-manufactured items.

They're uncommon because the DD tax stamp is needed for each individual munition, and there are strict rules for storage that go well beyond a $500 gun safe from Costco, and because there aren't (to my knowledge) any manufacturers who'll actually sell a new one to you, and because very very few people actually want them. The "finding one for sale" difficulty leaves Form 1 manufacturing (and there are laws making that a tough route too), or Form 4 transfer of increasingly rare older stock that's already out there.

I'm glad you agree with me that legal ownership of such things is a non-issue. I knew we had common ground.



That is exactly the case. Most states have reciprocity agreements with most other states.

With my Virginia permit, it's easier to list the states where it is NOT honored than states where it is: California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, most of the New England states.

The argument that states like California make is exactly what you imagine: they think other states' requirements are too loose.

The funny thing is, when I lived in California, I actually had a carry permit. And once I'd navigated through the absurd process (much of which has since been struck down by the courts), the actual "training" bit wasn't really any different or more difficult than the non-California requirements I've fulfilled elsewhere.

For the record, I personally think the training and education requirements for a carry permit are too low EVERYWHERE, California included. As they exist today, they are too short and essentially impossible to fail, no matter how dumb or incompetent a person is. I would favor more comprehensive training, and proficiency tests that are actually possible for a person to fail.

(Grenades, missiles) Yes, and also the ATF has to grant you permission (which it doesnt) Many states ban them outright. So basically, civilians cant realistically own then

Can Civilians Buy Grenades? - Aero Corner

Grenades are powerful explosive devices with an average blast radius of 5 to 20 meters. The first grenades were used in Europe in the 16th century. Grenades are also a common part of the modern military arsenal. The military still uses them, but can civilians buy grenades? Civilians can buy…

aerocorner.com

If you pass a background check (takes 1-3 days i assume) then i dont think you should need additional cooling off period as you said

In terms of the 1st amendment. A better analogy is that the 1st amendment is not unlimited. there are categories of free speech that arent protected (threats, incitement, defamation). So it stands to reason that there would be categories of the 2nd amendment that arent protected either.

 

[pgg]

(Grenades, missiles) Yes, and also the ATF has to grant you permission (which it doesnt) Many states ban them outright. So basically, civilians cant realistically own then

Can Civilians Buy Grenades? - Aero Corner

Grenades are powerful explosive devices with an average blast radius of 5 to 20 meters. The first grenades were used in Europe in the 16th century. Grenades are also a common part of the modern military arsenal. The military still uses them, but can civilians buy grenades? Civilians can buy…

aerocorner.com

If you pass a background check (takes 1-3 days i assume) then i dont think you should need additional cooling off period as you said

In terms of the 1st amendment. A better analogy is that the 1st amendment is not unlimited. there are categories of free speech that arent protected (threats, incitement, defamation). So it stands to reason that there would be categories of the 2nd amendment that arent protected either.

There are several post-Bruen cases that have been accepted by SCOTUS, with more pending review.

SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the notion that the right isn't unlimited. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that there are 2A "shouting fire in a theater" equivalents that aren't and shouldn't be protected.

I think we're going to have a lot more clarity on some of these issues soon. (Soon being a relative term 🙂 of course.)

Second Amendment in the spotlight

If you’ve followed coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term over the past few months, you’d likely say this term’s theme is executive power. The court already has added three […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Burned_Out]

My machine gun collection has been the best investment I've made since leaving residency. And no, I've never murdered anyone with them. Since 1934 when machineguns were regulated and then banned from new manufacture and registration in 1986, there have only been 2 incidents where legal MG's were used in a crime.

 

[UscGhost]

My machine gun collection has been the best investment I've made since leaving residency. And no, I've never murdered anyone with them. Since 1934 when machineguns were regulated and then banned from new manufacture and registration in 1986, there have only been 2 incidents where legal MG's were used in a crime.

Gang Violence: Machine guns were a signature weapon for the high-profile bank robbers and gangsters of the Prohibition era (1920-1933), including John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde. These incidents were widely covered by the media and led to a public perception that machine guns were a major crime problem

So.. sounds like heavily regulating them resulted in a significant decrease in their use in crimes.

Success!

What about assault weapons ban?

multiple studies found that mass shooting incidents and fatalities were significantly less likely to occur during the ban.

Post-Ban Increase: After the ban expired in 2004, there was a steep rise in mass shooting deaths and incidents. One study calculated that the risk of a person dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the ban.

Shocking!!

 

[DocMcCoy]

Gang Violence: Machine guns were a signature weapon for the high-profile bank robbers and gangsters of the Prohibition era (1920-1933), including John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde. These incidents were widely covered by the media and led to a public perception that machine guns were a major crime problem

So.. sounds like heavily regulating them resulted in a significant decrease in their use in crimes.

Success!

What about assault weapons ban?

multiple studies found that mass shooting incidents and fatalities were significantly less likely to occur during the ban.

Post-Ban Increase: After the ban expired in 2004, there was a steep rise in mass shooting deaths and incidents. One study calculated that the risk of a person dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the ban.

Shocking!!

Remind me again, what was the effect on the overall firearm homicide rate due to NFA 1934?

…and the AWB in 2004?

…none?

Shocking.

 

[UscGhost]

Remind me again, what was the effect on the overall firearm homicide rate due to NFA 1934?

…and the AWB in 2004?

…none?

Shocking.

Well lets see

Its a pretty good case study on the effects of a ban and the common counterarguments against bans

Counter argument:
Well banning them will just result in a black market for guns
-didnt happen with machine guns
-assault weapons ban wasnt long enough to assess

Banning guns wont reduce gun violence
-decrease in MG did result in a drop of their use in crimes
-assault weapons ban led to a decrease in mass shootings when banned, and a subsequent increase when the ban was removed
-every other 1st world country has less gun violence of course

Counter against tyranny
Well clearly less tyranny now than before, so MG not needed

Hunting?
I think hunters did fine without MGs

Seems pretty clear that there is no need for MGs. I would expect that gun violence would have been even higher had MGs been in wide circulation during the surges of gang violence and overall gun violence in recent decades

 

[DocMcCoy]

Well lets see

Its a pretty good case study on the effects of a ban and the common counterarguments against bans

Counter argument:
Well banning them will just result in a black market for guns
-didnt happen with machine guns
-assault weapons ban wasnt long enough to assess

Banning guns wont reduce gun violence
-decrease in MG did result in a drop of their use in crimes
-assault weapons ban led to a decrease in mass shootings when banned, and a subsequent increase when the ban was removed
-every other 1st world country has less gun violence of course

Counter against tyranny
Well clearly less tyranny now than before, so MG not needed

Hunting?
I think hunters did fine without MGs

Seems pretty clear that there is no need for MGs. I would expect that gun violence would have been even higher had MGs been in wide circulation during the surges of gang violence and overall gun violence in recent decades

What it really is an example of is how an infringement of individual rights unnecessarily burdens law abiding citizens while doing nothing to achieve the claimed goal of societal benefit. Unless that goal is admittedly removing guns, period.

By your own admission, the NFA act of 1934 was the result of the sensationalized coverage of a few events that created the public perception that machine guns were a major gun problem (they weren’t in the grand scheme of gun violence). Which echoes the current cry for an assault weapons ban as they are a major gun problem (they aren’t).

Chasing the 2%of gun violence deaths does little to nothing to address the actual problem. So much so that there isn’t a single study proving a causation between the AWB and reduced gun deaths even in cases of mass shootings. In fact, in the much broader sense, all major studies failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall gun violence related fatalities.

 

[UscGhost]

What it really is an example of is how an infringement of individual rights unnecessarily burdens law abiding citizens while doing nothing to achieve the claimed goal of societal benefit. Unless that goal is admittedly removing guns, period.

By your own admission, the NFA act of 1934 was the result of the sensationalized coverage of a few events that created the public perception that machine guns were a major gun problem (they weren’t in the grand scheme of gun violence). Which echoes the current cry for an assault weapons ban as they are a major gun problem (they aren’t).

Chasing the 2%of gun violence deaths does little to nothing to address the actual problem. So much so that there isn’t a single study proving a causation between the AWB and reduced gun deaths even in cases of mass shootings. In fact, in the much broader sense, all major studies failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall gun violence related fatalities.

Sensationalization?

Hardly, society decided they weren't needed and that a ban would result in a reduction in violence using those weapons.

All things that were subsequently proven

 

[DocMcCoy]

Sensationalization?

Hardly, society decided they weren't needed and that a ban would result in a reduction in violence using those weapons.

All things that were subsequently proven

Incredibly disingenuous post.

Again there is ZERO proof of the claims you are making.

The media definitely played a roll in sensationalizing the events and swaying public opinion.

There is no evidence proving the AWB (or NFA act of 1934) had any measurable effect on gun violence.

 

[UscGhost]

Incredibly disingenuous post.

Again there is ZERO proof of the claims you are making.

The media definitely played a roll in sensationalizing the events and swaying public opinion.

There is no evidence proving the AWB (or NFA act of 1934) had any measurable effect on gun violence.

Not sure how much more proof is feasible.

MG deaths were a problem...MGs were banned..then they were no longer a problem

AW were a problem..they they were banned..the problem of mass shootings dropped

• Fewer Incidents and Deaths: Research suggests that mass shooting fatalities were approximately 70% less likely to occur during the 10-year period the AWB was active.
• Columbine Massacre: Even with the inclusion of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, which was the deadliest mass shooting during the AWB period, the average annual rates of mass shootings and related deaths were lower than in the periods before and after the ban.
• Post-Ban Increase: After the AWB expired in 2004, there was a steep rise in mass shooting deaths and incidents. The average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings jumped significantly after the ban was lifted.
• Prevented Shootings: One study estimated the ban may have prevented up to five public mass shootings while in effect, and that its continuation could have prevented many more in the subsequent years.

What we do know...is that those bans absolutely led to zero effects on hunting, tyranny, self defense,etc. And no study has even hinted at that.

It is amusing though. Usually the 2A folks then just resort to " Well 2A says i can have them, so you would have to change the laws". Well, they did.

If you want to argue that MGs should be legal again, then go for it. But you'll need to do a bit better than what has been presented so far

 

[pgg]

MG deaths were a problem...MGs were banned..then they were no longer a problem

Do you know how many MG murders were there during, say, the 10 year period prior to 1934?

The decrease in organized crime murders after the 1934 NFA was passed had everything to do with the repeal of prohibition (December 1933), which took the money out of bootlegging, and little or nothing to do with the regulation of machine guns (which were and still are less effective killing weapons than semi-auto rifles).

 

[UscGhost]

Do you know how many MG murders were there during, say, the 10 year period prior to 1934?

The decrease in organized crime murders after the 1934 NFA was passed had everything to do with the repeal of prohibition (December 1933), which took the money out of bootlegging, and little or nothing to do with the regulation of machine guns (which were and still are less effective killing weapons than semi-auto rifles).

Organized crime peaked in the 40s and 50s..so if they didn't ban them..it would have been far worse

Statistics arent available for murders back then. But it was a national problem

 

[pgg]

Organized crime peaked in the 40s and 50s..so if they didn't ban them..it would have been far worse

That's your conjecture. And what you just said is that for decades after the 1934 NFA, organized crime kept getting worse.

Also, it's important to point out that they weren't banned - just taxed heavily to put legal ownership out of the hands of poor people. They were still widely available to criminals who, you know, didn't care about the law.

It's almost as if trends in criminal activity are influenced by factors more important than what guns are legally/cheaply available.

Statistics arent available for murders back then.

And yet, somehow you're convinced that ...

But it was a national problem

... in other words, it was perceived as a problem, by some people.

Surely you don't think sensationalized media coverage of events is just a modern invention? 😉


Perception (mostly misguided) is worse than reality with machine guns. The focus on regulating them is interesting to me, given their very limited usefulness.

Do you know why the M16A2 (which replaced the Vietnam-era fully automatic M16A1 in the early 1980s) had NO fully automatic mode, just a semi-auto mode and a 3-round burst mode?

 

[UscGhost]

That's your conjecture. And what you just said is that for decades after the 1934 NFA, organized crime kept getting worse.

Also, it's important to point out that they weren't banned - just taxed heavily to put legal ownership out of the hands of poor people. They were still widely available to criminals who, you know, didn't care about the law.

It's almost as if trends in criminal activity are influenced by factors more important than what guns are legally/cheaply available.


And yet, somehow you're convinced that ...


... in other words, it was perceived as a problem, by some people.

Surely you don't think sensationalized media coverage of events is just a modern invention? 😉


Perception (mostly misguided) is worse than reality with machine guns. The focus on regulating them is interesting to me, given their very limited usefulness.

Do you know why the M16A2 (which replaced the Vietnam-era fully automatic M16A1 in the early 1980s) had NO fully automatic mode, just a semi-auto mode and a 3-round burst mode?

I said gun violence kept getting worse

Google said organized crime peaked in the 40s-50s. You said, without evidence, that it was the fall of organized crime in the 30s that resulted in a decrease in criminal MG use...when in fact, organized crime didnt decrease until what, 20 years after?

It was an effective ban. The $200 tax was extremely high and it required registration. Both onerous hurdles that basically led to the cessation of sales. So no, they werent widely available.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Not sure how much more proof is feasible.

MG deaths were a problem...MGs were banned..then they were no longer a problem

AW were a problem..they they were banned..the problem of mass shootings dropped

Statistically, they were not a problem. Thats the point.

Chasing rare events makes statistical analysis difficult. Exceedingly low sample sizes, huge confidence intervals…

Any assertion that the AW ban did anything to reduce gun death is a type 1 error. Regarding “the reduction in mass shootings”, that could just as plausibly be explained by maybe people just didn’t feel like killing as much, that is statistically just as likely a scenario. And I know that you known several alternative hypotheses haven been suggested.

• Fewer Incidents and Deaths: Research suggests that mass shooting fatalities were approximately 70% less likely to occur during the 10-year period the AWB was active.
• Columbine Massacre: Even with the inclusion of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, which was the deadliest mass shooting during the AWB period, the average annual rates of mass shootings and related deaths were lower than in the periods before and after the ban.
• Post-Ban Increase: After the AWB expired in 2004, there was a steep rise in mass shooting deaths and incidents. The average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings jumped significantly after the ban was lifted.
• Prevented Shootings: One study estimated the ban may have prevented up to five public mass shootings while in effect, and that its continuation could have prevented many more in the subsequent years.

“It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.”

And an increasing population, internet and social media tends, media polarization, etc.


You undoubtedly would expect more from medical literature making such conclusions. Why are you making an exception here?

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal

Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

What we do know...is that those bans absolutely led to zero effects on hunting, tyranny, self defense,etc. And no study has even hinted at that.

We don’t know that at all. Any study done would come to the same conclusion. The incidence of such events would result in such a small sample size, no effect could confidently be measured.

And as rare as machine guns are, as rare as using a gun in any capacity in self defense is, there are still instances of it happening.

Tyrannical? Maybe the action of a tyrannical government. There are several cases cooking regarding ATF overreach in their rule making capacity related to such weapons.

It is amusing though. Usually the 2A folks then just resort to " Well 2A says i can have them, so you would have to change the laws". Well, they did.

They didn’t change 2A they circumvented it, in a pre-Heller and Bruen political landscape.

Organized crime peaked in the 40s and 50s..so if they didn't ban them..it would have been far worse

Statistics arent available for murders back then. But it was a national problem

Uh huh. Crime (organized) was already down at the end of prohibition, and machine gun “violence” has already peaked prior to the NFA act of 1934.

 

[UscGhost]

Statistically, they were not a problem. Thats the point.

Chasing rare events makes statistical analysis difficult. Exceedingly low sample sizes, huge confidence intervals…

Any assertion that the AW ban did anything to reduce gun death is a type 1 error. Regarding “the reduction in mass shootings”, that could just as plausibly be explained by maybe people just didn’t feel like killing as much, that is statistically just as likely a scenario. And I know that you known several alternative hypotheses haven been suggested.



“It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.”

And an increasing population, internet and social media tends, media polarization, etc.


You undoubtedly would expect more from medical literature making such conclusions. Why are you making an exception here?

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal

Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

We don’t know that at all. Any study done would come to the same conclusion. The incidence of such events would result in such a small sample size, no effect could confidently be measured.

And as rare as machine guns are, as rare as using a gun in any capacity in self defense is, there are still instances of it happening.

Tyrannical? Maybe the action of a tyrannical government. There are several cases cooking regarding ATF overreach in their rule making capacity related to such weapons.



They didn’t change 2A they circumvented it, in a pre-Heller and Bruen political landscape.



Uh huh. Crime (organized) was already down at the end of prohibition, and machine gun “violence” has already peaked prior to the NFA act of 1934.

Lol

You forgot to include the rest of the quote from the study

Ill add it here for you

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.

Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons.

Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.

Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.

But please, should me any study, that even suggests a possible correlation between tyranny, MGs, or their use in self defense